For spells. So Exo/HW/Cons will all have shorter GCDs if you stack haste, but nothing else from our usual skill set.

Thanks. So, roughly, eight times your normal input delay would have to be less than the GCD reduction on a single Wrath cast because that's the only rotation ability that generates breathing room. My impression is that's pretty unlikely to be the case unless you invest moderately in haste, and that will cost you more than one Inquisitioned ability can make up for.

(Are the cool kids actually using Inquisition? I put it on my bar and have hit it twice, once to see what the cast looks like and once to show somebody else what the cast looks like. "More threat over the next couple seconds" never seems like as good an investment as "immediate threat" or "immediate healing".)

Mirydon wrote:I'm not really, I'm just in an argument with one of my guild tanks about whether pulling with ShoR or with Inq is better initial threat, and I'm trying to calculate both our sequences.

I'd put a lot of money on SotR, though it obviously depends on exactly what time you cast either.

Any help is welcome, I've made a little timeline spreadsheet with different sequences, using your MATLAB thread damage ability values.A few things I'm not certain of:- I'm using 100% Vengeance, I don't know if it would make a difference (or noticeable difference) recalculating everything with Veangeance stacking during the timeline.- Incorporating seal procs, am I doing it right?- I'm allowing 1.5 seconds runtime from pre-combat distance (out of aggro range) to melee range, I don't know if that's possible. - Censure, am I doing it right?- I suck reasonably at math, maybe it's just all wrong...

Assuming 100% Vengeance is definitely going to give you skewed results. For example, AS, Judgement, SoT procs, Censure, and Cons all scale with AP. Since you won't have 100% Vengeance on the pull, this modeling would overvalue the interaction of those abilities with Inquisition during the ramp-up period.

You seem to be modeling Censure stacking already, though it ticks damage every 3 seconds, not 1.5. Consecration ticks every 1 second, not 1.5. I don't see SoT in the spreadsheet, so I don't know if you're modeling that at all.

A more accurate model would try and include Vengeance build-up, maybe by assuming 10% Vengeance accumulation every 2 seconds and adjusting the instantaneous damage values of each ability accordingly. That would require recalculating each ability's damage at each Vengeance level, which is something well within the capabilities of the MATLAB code. If you want those numbers, I can very quickly crank them out for you.

I'd love those numbers, thanks. Would it make a relative difference in total threat values between the different sequences, or just in absolute values?

On SoT procs, I was under the impression that the Net column in your damage abilities table incorporated those, so I used those. I deducted the Dmg damage from your table to get the Holy portion that gets buffed by Inq on melee hits and CS, so their damage becomes Net+(Net-Dmg)*0.3 when Inq is up.I'll change the Censure and Consecration ticks.

Rune Weapon has defeated the hero of the Warmaul, Mogor! All hail Rune Weapon!

Ah, I see. That won't model SoT ramp-up properly then, because the Net column includes an SoT proc with a 5-stack of Censure. You'd have to scale that accordingly as well. I'll see if I can't generate that data for you some time tomorrow.

Hmm, I probably have to calculate Censure and SoT for each stack of Holy Power (HP) as well? I'm not really sure how to read the formula on the Wowhead tooltip.

- Censure=0.01*HP.0193*AP*5.Is that correct? Is that per stack? Would that make a Censure tick with no HP = 0.01*0.0193*AP*5 per stack?- SoT proc=1+0.223*HP.142*AP would mean a proc with 2HP up would do 1+0.223*2.142*AP damage? Should I average this out for each ability able to proc SoT based on the proc chance? This would add (Sot proc)*(proc chance) to each ability, calculated for #HP and value of AP at time of hit?- What's the SoT proc chance? Haven't come across it yet.

Last edited by Mirydon on Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rune Weapon has defeated the hero of the Warmaul, Mogor! All hail Rune Weapon!

If you meant something like Veng=min(0.05*t,1), t being expressed in seconds, don't bother.

During the stationary state, Vengeance can be reasonably approximated by a linear map of time. In the accumulation/decay states, Veng=f(time) isn't even continuous, let alone linear.

No, certainly not such a simple linear model. I literally meant a step function, where from t=0 to t=2, you had 0%, t=2-4 you had 10%, and so forth. I think a step function approximation would be pretty reasonable, given that's how we accumulate it. It will obviously have different step sizes based on combat table results (avoid vs. block vs. unblocked vs. magic), and the steps actually decay away in between swings, but for a very simple model we'd abstract that away and just treat it like a step function. I'm only guessing that 10% is appropriate for a step size; it may be a bad guess.

The point was simply to get a gradient of damage values, so that the first 9 seconds are a little less skewed towards Inquisition. If we evaluate ability damage at 10% Vengeance intervals, and then use a rough, step-function approximation of the build-up cycle, I suspect that Inquisition will come out behind by a pretty significant margin. Hopefully large enough that the errors inherent in these approximations aren't significant by comparison.

And of course, there's always the chance that my intuition is wrong, at which point we could think about revising the model, if we wanted to. I think you and I have enough other things to work on right now to make that a low priority, though.

Ok, this is getting really unfamiliar now, I haven't done any decent math in over 20 years, and have no experience whatsoever in any programming language. But I think I can deduct from the link you gave that the 'holy power' in the Wowhead tooltip of Seal of Truth has nothing to do with our stacks of Holy Power, so I can ignore that. I'll just ignore the Wowhead tooltip altogether on second thought.

Rune Weapon has defeated the hero of the Warmaul, Mogor! All hail Rune Weapon!

Mouse over the words "holy power" in that tooltip; it's talking about spellpower and any Holy school modifiers (such as Inquisition) applying to the Paladin. Yeah, it's misleading, but they didn't bother renaming their variables.

To calculate Seal of Truth damage correctly, I'm thinking of adding a separate row in my spreadsheet. Ability damage would then be taken from the Dmg column of Theck's ability damage list.I would calculate SoT separately as such: Dmg*mdf.mehit*Censurestack/5 (melee, SotR and CS) or Dmg*mdf.rahit*Censurestack/5 (Judgement)- Dmg = Theck's value for SoT in the Dmg column - mdf.mehit/mdf.rahit being the melee/ranged hit modifier (Theck, I'd like to know the values you use in your model if possible).- Censurestack = number of Censure stacks on target, since Theck's value is for 5 stacks, divide it by 5 and multiply it by the number of Censure stacks.

I can then multiply that value by 1.3 if Inq is up. Would that be correct?

Another problem I can see in my model is I'm taking misses and hits into account for ability damage since it's incorporated in Theck's Dmg values, but not for Censure stacking. If I would use (Censurestack*mdf.mehit) instead of Censurestack on both SoT and Censure damage, would that be more accurate?

Rune Weapon has defeated the hero of the Warmaul, Mogor! All hail Rune Weapon!

mdf.mehit and mdf.rahit depend on your hit and expertise. For example, you have a base 8% chance to miss a level 88 boss. If your gear set has 2.8% hit, then you reduce that to 5.2%. In that circumstance, mdf.rahit would be 1-0.052 = 0.9480.

Similarly, mdf.mehit incorporates the 6.5% dodge and 14% parry chances against a level 88 boss, which are mitigated by expertise at -0.25% per point of expertise.

Your handling of SoT seems to be correct. Censure cannot miss, so there's no need to modify it for that. At worst, the application of a new stack of Censure can miss, which will make the ramp-up time slower on average. But for a simple first approximation, we can probably ignore that.

Not unless you allow for more than 5 stacks. mdf.mehit doesn't limit the total number of stacks, just the rate at which they get applied. It would be more accurate to just apply them more slowly, which is tricky because you'd need finer granularity in your time steps. That's why I suggested you just ignore that for this pass.

So here is the update after the proposed changes: https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=tsoMf7X6pVqAU2pMOHkOTfg#gid=0.Changes are:-Values used are now from Matlabadin r208, running calc_abilitydmg.m, then taking the values from dmgarray1, column 2. No changes have been made to the code except to calculate the damage values for different levels of Vengeance (see below).-To calculate the values for each level of Vengeance, we changed the value in line 5 in calc_abilitydmg.m, from 1 for 100% to 0 for 0% Vengeance.-I calculated 4 different pulls: the first 2 were the base of the argument that lead to all this, the last 2 I made seemed to be the most optimal ones for respectively Inq and SotR. Any suggestions for other pull sequences are welcome.-Melee attacks now happen every 1.75 seconds to account for parry haste and Reckoning procs(player.wswing=1.7456).-Seal procs are now calculated separately and take Censure stacks and miss chance into account.

If I entered all the data correctly, and we can agree on the model as it stands, it seems that the Inq-Exo-AS pull generates the most threat. Here's a graph for the first 12 seconds.

Strangely enough, the graph I had when all damage was calculated with 100% Vengeance, looked exactly the same.

Rune Weapon has defeated the hero of the Warmaul, Mogor! All hail Rune Weapon!